Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Proposed change to Wasilla section

A number of editors have worked hard on expanding the library controversy/early firings information to better reflect all the facts. (See "Book Banning" section above.) This is what we have come up with:

---

While Palin was mayor, she raised the subject of removing some books from the town's library. According to the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, Palin asked her three times, beginning before she was inaugurated, about removing books from the library if the need arose. In response, Emmons refused to consider "any type of censorship". At an October 1996 city council meeting, according to one Wasilla resident, Palin asked "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", because some Wasilla residents felt the books contained inappropriate language. Emmons, who had received a request for her resignation from Palin four days prior, strongly rejected the idea for a second time. Palin later stated that the question had been rhetorical in nature. Ultimately, no books were removed from the library.

In October 1996, Palin asked the Wasilla police chief, public works director, finance director, and Emmons to resign, saying that she felt they didn't support her administration. She also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters. In January 1997, Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and Emmons that they were being fired. She stated that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration, but declined to be more specific. She rescinded the firing of the librarian the next day, after community outcry, stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. The police chief, however, was fired and filed a lawsuit. A court dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

---

These two paragraphs would replace the current 3rd paragraph of the "Wasilla" section. Although, I believe consensus has already been reached, I am reposting it (with references) to solicit further comment before asking it to be added to the main article.--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose because this phrase "who had received a request for her resignation from Palin four days prior" is out of context and does not reflect that she was terminated the same time as the police chief. It's confusing and should be omitted. Also, though it would require a little re-writing, the order of the two paragraphs should be reversed so that the chronology makes sense.--Paul (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The phrase in question was used to show that the letter came first since both happend in October, but I agree it is a little ackward. The 'book debate' came before the firings, so I thought this was the more logical order. Perhaps a rewrite to the order resignation, books, firings is in order? That would seem to solve both problems.

Oppose Appears to make a causal link between the book issue (which looks to be getting a little bit of undue weight) with the Palin's request for termination. After reading some of the sources both the Librarian and the police cheif actively supported her opponent for Mayor. Additionally, a city council member stated that one of the reason she was elected was for general change. Arzel (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin asked the Wasilla police chief, public works director, finance director, and librarian to resign, saying that she felt they didn't support her administration. In January 1997, Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons that they were being fired. The police chief filed a lawsuit protesting his firing. A court dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason. The firing of the librarian, was more controversial. According to Emmons, Palin had asked her three times about removing books from the library "because some Wasilla residents felt the books contained inappropriate language." Emmons refused to consider "any type of censorship". Palin later stated that the question had been rhetorical in nature. Ultimately, no books were removed from the library. Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the day after her initial action, stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations.

It has all of same facts, but shows a better chronology.--Paul (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this section, though it is clear from the first section that the inquiries over banning books was more than a one time affair. I would suggest the following edit to the second proposal: "According to Emmons, Palin had asked her three times about removing books..." Joshdboz (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your suggested change is fine with me. "three times" it is.--Paul (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Number of times implies that three is somehow significantly important, and strengthens the belief that the books were the reason she asked for termination (plus the bolding is a bit much). Additionally, the librarian was never fired from what I have read, only that she had said that she was going to fire her. So we cannot say that she was actually fired. Additionally for neutrality it should be noted that both the librarian and police cheif actively supported her opponent during the election for mayor. An additional minor aspect is the repeating of the first sentence later in the paragraph, this needs to be rewritten. Arzel (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the word "fired" should be replaced with "terminated" in all instances. Terminate or termination of a position is the correct grammatical form. Arzel (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Drafts 1 through 5 and associated discussion

New version

After some thought about this, I think 3 short paragraphs are better than 1-2 long ones. This is the best way to show chronology. As such, here is my new proposal. I added a few details to the resignations part to better show Palin's reasoning.

---

Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin asked the Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons to resign, saying that she felt they didn't support her administration. All four had been part of the previous administration and Palin had been elected on a platform of change. A fifth director, John Cooper resigned when his job overseeing the museum was eliminated. She also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters.

According to one Wasilla resident, later that month Palin asked Emmons at a city council meeting, "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", because some Wasilla residents felt the books contained inappropriate language. Emmons strongly rejected the idea. According to Emmons, Palin asked her about this subject a total of three times, beginning before Palin was inaugurated. Palin later stated that the question had been rhetorical in nature and ultimately no books were removed from the library.

In January 1997, Palin notified Stambaugh and Emmons that they were being fired. She stated that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration, but declined to be more specific. She rescinded the firing of the librarian Emmons the next day, after community outcry, stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. The police chief Stambaugh, however, was fired and filed a lawsuit. A court dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

---

It is probably a bit long, but I'm not sure which details to cut. Thoughts? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fired should be changed to terminated for proper current official terminology. Remove the "but declined to be more specific", implies that her reason wasn't valid. Arzel (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with either your version (if you'll cut out "but declined to be more specific"), or my version. It is so tedious to have to devote so much of the article to this long ago little skirmish in the culture wars. My version is about 2/3 the size of yours, so I prefer it a little, but yours is a bit more neutral because it contains more of the facts from the Wasilla PDF.--Paul (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have striken the "but declined" part. I'm not sure about 'terminated' as that seems unnecessarily harsh and firing is the more common term (even if not technically correct). If its really an issue, I can accept "that their employment was being terminated" as a replacement for "that they were being fired". (Along with changing the other mentions of fired to terminated, of course.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

One more change. The supplied reference does not support "after community outcry." Without a cite, it is not a NPOV and should be removed.--Paul (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good catch - I apparently "SYNTHed" that in from somewhere with out realizing it. The actual source only says "caused a stir,' which doesn't mean much of anything. I am striking it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Support: I have been following this section from the beginning of its development. This is the best version. I fixed two spelling errors but otherwise I think it is ready to add to the main page. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think "Terminated" is the proper form, perhaps "Dismissed", but I won't press the issue. I made one small change to ensure consistancy as well (librarian to Emmons and police cheif to Stambaugh in all instances). Arzel (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Frontiersman just published the original Dec. 18, 1996 article which is the primary source referenced by the others. Since it looks like it was just posted, none of us would have known about it when the edits were made. I still support the section below - I just think that it needs to be tweaked to refer to the primary source. Can this be done quickly before it is added to the main article?

FROM THE ARCHIVE: Palin: Library censorship inquiries 'Rhetorical'

• http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/06/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt

Frontiersman Dec. 18, 1996 -Classicfilms (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I am withdrawing this request until people have had a chance to read the newly republished original source for the news articles written on this subject. Found here: [1] I personally think the existing text is fine, but should probably be tweaked to the language of the original article and resourced where appropriate. Please make any suggested changes below the current version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

After extensive talk/negotiations in the Book Banning and Clarity about early firings sections, as well as some refinement here, I believe we have finally reached consensus and respectfully request the follow edit...

Please replace the current third paragraph of the Wasilla section that starts "In October 1996, she asked the Wasilla police chief..." with the following three paragraphs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Current version:

Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin asked the Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons to resign, saying that she felt they didn't support her administration.All four had been part of the previous administration and Palin had been elected on a platform of change. A fifth director, John Cooper resigned when his job overseeing the museum was eliminated. She also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters.

According to one Wasilla resident, later that month Palin asked Emmons at a city council meeting, "What would your response be if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?", because some Wasilla residents felt the books contained inappropriate language. Emmons strongly rejected the idea. According to Emmons, Palin asked her about this subject a total of three times, beginning before Palin was inaugurated. Palin later stated that the question had been rhetorical in nature and ultimately no books were removed from the library.

In January 1997, Palin notified Stambaugh and Emmons that they were being fired. She stated that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration. She rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Stambaugh, however, was fired and filed a lawsuit. A court dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

Suggested changes: I would like to suggest that we modify the second paragraph only according to the primary 1996 source and focus on Emmons rather than what others said happened. I also used a direct quote from both Emmons and Palin in order to present both sides of the argument. Please feel free to restore deleted material or modify what I am suggesting here - in order to satisfy WP guidelines, it seems to me that we should focus on primary sources as much as possible. Here it is:

According to a 1996 article in the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, Emmons stated that Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship with her. These discussions, which took place in October 1996, became public when Palin, herself, referred to them during an interview. Palin argued that she wanted to know how Emmons would react to the issue of censorship in a general sense but did not have a specific list of books in mind. Emmons stated that "I will fight anyone who tries to dictate what books can go on the library shelves [...] this is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book -challenge policy [...] she was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Palin responded through a written statement that "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature." She also later stated that "the issue was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy." Ultimately no books were removed from the library.

-Classicfilms (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If the footnote doesn't appear well, here is the source again: http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/06/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt -Classicfilms (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed changes to the 2nd paragraph. This is entirely too much detail and bumps up against WP:UNDUE. I support the three-paragraph version, above.--Paul (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to include the original, primary source which was not available when that version was being hashed out. If this version is too long, tweak or trim it as I wrote above. But I would disagree with any version which does not make use of the primary source. The WP always encourages the use of primary sources. -Classicfilms (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia urges the use of secondary sources, not primary sources. Use of primary sources can lead to original research, which is a no-no.--Paul (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the use of a primary source here. We are talking about using articles which describe the Frontiersman article over using the Frontiersman article. This is a different context for using a primary source.WP:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources doesn't say they can't be used but should be used on a case by case basis. The section still makes use of the current news articles which talk about the event - but to discard the original article which actually contains quotes by Emmons rather than comments about what people said she stated is misleading. As I wrote above, go ahead and restore portions of the second paragraph or delete the quotes - but I will not agree to a second paragraph which itself does not reference the original Frontiersman article. This is not original research - this is a responsible account of the event. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It not really a primary source just a much earlier secondary source. The current sources being used are mostly tertiary sources in reality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. A primary source would, for example, be the actual letter Palin wrote or the transcript of the interview with either Emmons or Palin. Thanks ThaddeusB for clarifying this. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Second draft

Just to be clear, the current section on Sarah Palin's early days as mayor is 150 words long. I include it here just so we're all clear about what is under discussion:

In October 1996, she asked the Wasilla police chief, librarian, public works director, and finance director to resign, and instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters. In January 1997, Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and the town librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, that they were being fired. Palin said in a letter that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration. She rescinded the firing of the librarian, but not the police chief. The chief filed a lawsuit, but a court dismissed it, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason. According to Anne Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed the City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea.

Now, there's a lot of problems with it, particularly with the last sentence. I proposed tacking on a 181-word paragraph on the library issue. ThaddeusB proposed replacing the above paragraph with two grafs, 263 words all together, on resignations, terminations and book removal. Theosis4u proposed a 689-word version and then we got back to 298 words with ThaddeusB again, and with Classicfilms' tweaks, we're at 365. The version I now propose below, with tweaks, is 386 words long. There will be objections, but in my opinion the length is inevitable, because the more disputed a subject is, the more editors have no choice but to stick with the precise wording of the sources they rely upon, which makes it impossible to rephrase events in a summary fashion.

Paul, it's true that the idea of outcry was not in the reference ThaddeusB cited, but it is in others, including this one -- http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html -- so we should include it again. The specific wording is: "a wave of public support." This was covered earlier in the talk thread, and cited properly. The argument that Emmons was kept on because she agreed to merge with the museum is according to Palin only. What's more, the issue of the museum itself isn't essential to this discussion. In the tweaked version below, I've rewritten that sentence for brevity. I also think we can cut the sentence on the museum director, John Cooper.

But it seems necessary to include two additional facts, one from the recently republished Frontiersman article. 1) The librarian said Palin brought up a scenario where the library would be picketed, and asked her how she would feel about censorship then. That's stronger language than we've had evidence of so far, and deserves inclusion. Yes, only the librarian says it happened. But only Palin says her remarks were rhetorical. Just because only one source says something doesn't disqualify it from inclusion here, especially when we're talking about a tete-a-tete.

And we could get into it a lot more. The Wasilla library released this statement:

"This library holds censorship to be a purely individual matter and declares that – while anyone is free to reject for himself books and other materials of which he does not approve – he cannot exercise this right of censorship to restrict the freedom of others."

Which puts Palin's inquiries in a pretty bad light. But for many here, that will be going too far and getting too wordy, so for now I think we should just stick to tweaking the changes presently proposed.

I do have a second addition, however. Much has been made about Palin's prerogatives to fire city employees. Those editors who seem to support her actions have repeatedly justified them by saying that Emmons, Stambaugh et al had openly backed her opponent in the mayoral race. But by those arguments, Palin was acting illegally. Thanks to Theosis4u, we have the Wasilla Munical Code, which outlines the mayor's powers:

2.16.020 Power and duties of mayor.

A. The mayor is the chief administrator of the city, has the same powers and duties as those of a manager under AS 29.20.005, and shall: ...

4. Appoint, suspend or remove city employees and administrative officials, except as provided otherwise in AS Title 29 and the Wasilla Municipal Code; http://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Wasilla/Wasilla02/Wasilla0216.html#2.16.020

So the mayor is bound by AS Title 29, which is the title on Municipal Government. Under the chapter Municipal Officers and Employees, and the section Prohibited Discrimination, we find:

AS 29.20.630. Prohibited Discrimination.

(a) A person may not be appointed to or removed from municipal office or in any way favored or discriminated against with respect to a municipal position or municipal employment because of the person's race, color, sex, creed, national origin or, unless otherwise contrary to law, because of the person's political opinions or affiliations. (The bold is mine.) http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title29/Chapter20/Section630.htm

This is why Palin never said she fired them because they had supported Stein. She only said she did not feel she had their full support. With the second sentence in the above version, we are leaving the reader to infer that Palin fired them for their political affiliations, and that such action was justified. If that was indeed her reasoning, then she acted illegally, and we should either remove the sentence entirely or qualify what we're suggesting here. I have made those changes in the 2nd sentence of the version I propose below:

---

Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin asked the Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons to resign. All four had been part of the previous administration and Palin had been elected on a platform of change; however, it is illegal under Alaska law to fire city employees for their political affiliations, and Palin only said she felt they didn't support her administration. She also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters.

According to a 1996 article in The Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, Emmons said that Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship with her. These discussions, which took place in October 1996, became public when Palin herself referred to them during an interview. Palin argued that she wanted to know how Emmons would react to the issue of censorship in a general sense, but did not have a specific list of books in mind.

Emmons said, "I will fight anyone who tries to dictate what books can go on the library shelves." The librarian explained: "This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy," adding that Palin "was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library." Emmons said Palin raised the possibility of picketing the library in the same discussion. Palin responded in a written statement that "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature." She also said later that "the issue was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy." Ultimately no books were removed from the library.

In January 1997, Palin notified Stambaugh and Emmons that they were being fired. She stated that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration. She rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day, after a wave of public support for the librarian, saying that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support her. Stambaugh, however, was fired and filed a lawsuit. A court dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

Like.liberation 17:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - Thanks Like.liberation. This is a great version. I support it. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for giving this another try and finding the correct sourcing for the public outcry bit. However, I have a couple objections:

1. The whole "illegal under Alaska law" thing has to go. The jobs in question are non-partisan and there is no evidence to believe that they were fired for the political affiliation. I am pretty sure the law is referring only to one's political party; And a judge later ruled that Palin did have the right to fire someone for political reasons. Also use a primary source (the law itself) is original research - none of our newspaper articles claimed it would be illegal, so we shouldn't either.
2. There is no reason to split the 2nd paragraph into 2 and I am confident this info can be conveyed in less words.

I'll give it another stab here in a sec. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have to agree these are fair points. Yes, another draft would then be appreciated. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes:

1. Remove: "however, it is illegal under Alaska law to fire city employees for their political affiliations, and Palin only said she felt they didn't support her administration" improperly implies firings were for partisan political purposes.
2. Remove: "She also instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters." Irrelevant to the issue at hand and in this context unfairly implies that she is a "censorship freak."

These changes would make it more neutral.--Paul (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

These are also fair suggestions which I support. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You bet, ThaddeusB. I agree that we should get the word count down, and I look forward to the next version.

I think you're misinterpreting the judge's ruling in the Stambaugh case though. His case was dismissed in federal court after a three-year process, but we have no evidence that the judge said Palin could fire him for political reasons. Only that she could fire him.

Noting Palin's careful language, we should be just as careful what we suggest about why they were fired. She always says it was about support, never the fact that the directors had worked under Stein.

If we’re going to be so careful about suggesting causal chains, let’s apply the same rigor equally across the board. Plenty of articles have suggested the librarian was almost terminated for refusing to consider removing books, but we’re going with that theory. We should drop the other as well.Like.liberation 18:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul, the present version suggests that she fired them for political reasons, by noting their affiliation with the former mayor. We need to drop that, or include her saying that she didn't do it for political reasons. Why? Because she couldn't.

The sentence about policy heads needing her approval before talking to the press is not irrelevant. It's important. Not everything in these paragraphs has to do with censorship and not everything has to. In them, we're talking about big changes Palin made or tried to make early in her mayoral career. The "gag order" as it was called was one such change, and considered just as newsworthy at the time as the resignations, terminations and inquiries as to book removal. It's verifiable, notable and an NPOV fact that's now in the proper place. There's no reason to drop it.Like.liberation 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

LL...

1. The draft version holds that she was elected to effect change, and instituted house cleaning upon taking office. This is not necessarily political. Including the "illegal under Alaska law" material is suggestive when there is no proof that there was any legal conflict at all. It's got to go.
2. No one puts material into an article just because it is "newsworthy," especially not biographical articles. This multi-paragraph section is only here because we are dealing with the "censorship" issue. As I said above, in this context including this material unfairly implies that she is a "censorship freak," and implies there was a connection between the library issue and the talking to the press issue. That's pure supposition. Its inclusion betrays a POV when we are supposed to have a NPOV.

I think the most recent draft is accurate and mostly balanced. I would lean toward supporting it if these two items are removed.--Paul (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul, Changes that one is elected to make are necessarily political, and Palin's so-called house-cleaning involved throwing the administrative apparatus of a small town into upheaval. There was a legal conflict, and it was embodied in Stambaugh's law suit, and it had a legal resolution in federal court. Secondary sources also cite the formation of a group called Concerned Citizens of Wasilla, which challenged his firing.

This multigraf section is meant to address a number of issues, all of them pertinent to the early days of Palin's mayoral tenure. Censorship was not the only one, although it remains important. We have done our best to strip it of implications, and keep it as fair as possible, based on the facts at our disposal that we have articulated, together, in the most neutral way we can. To exclude them would be another sort of POV, in a graf about censorship ...

We're not implying any connection between talking to the press and library censorship. I can't imagine that ThaddeusB meant that, and I haven't heard anyone else here interpret it that way. We just can't give every sentence its own paragraph. Please make this a little easier. Everyone is compromising.

Like.liberation 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This conversation has been overtaken by events. I'm sure you've seen ThaddeusB's draft #4 and my support thereof. It omits the lecturing about "illegal under Alaska law" and re-phrases the press issue to make it less censorship-linked. Although, as I mentioned below, I think the "circling the library" bit is piling on and only has a single source, we all need to get this behind us and move to other issues in the article needing attention. You are right, we all have to compromise, and we all have done so. Thanks for your hard work on this section of the article.--Paul (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Third times a charm?

Here is what a have come up with:--ThaddeusB (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin was elected on a platform of change and wasted no time starting on that agenda. Shortly after taking office in October 1996, she eliminated the museum overseer position and asked the Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons to resign, saying that she felt they didn't support her administration. Palin called the request, which was accompanied by a request for updated resumes, a way to find out who supports her as mayor. She also instituted a temporary policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters until they got to know her administration's policies.

Accoring to Emmons, Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship with her - briefly in early October then in detail on October 28th. Palin asked if Emmons would object to censorship to which Emmons replied "Yup and ... it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would get involved, too." Palin also asked about the possibility of people circling the library in protest to which Emmons replied "it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then." In early December, Palin was the first to speak about the issue publically, using it as an example of conservations she'd had with her department heads. She stated that "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature" and that it "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy." Ultimately no books were removed from the library.

In January 1997, Palin notified Stambaugh and Emmons that they were being fired. She stated that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration. She rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day, after a wave of public support for Emmons, stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Stambaugh, however, was fired and filed a lawsuit. A court dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

Comments/Suggestions I reworked the first paragraph to address the concerns above. I left in no talking to reporters line, but changed it as the original newspaper article called it a temporary measure until she got to know the dept. heads. I don't think it is necessary, but its debatable.--ThaddeusB (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the middle paragraph is still too long. I would consider leaving out either the precise timing of the meetings or the circling the library line since neither adds much. Palin's response could also be shortened. Other thoughts? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's okay with me to remove the "circling the library" sentence, it's in the footnoted source and anyone interested in more detail can easily find it. Other than that, this looks fine.--Paul (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Seattle Times did a front page article on Palin's first year as Wasilla's mayor.[2] Perhaps it could be of some use? Of particular note is that after the attempted firing of the librarian and successful firing of the sheriff and museum chief, 2 of the remaining 4 department chiefs quit and all three of the people asked to replace the museum chief quit rather than take the position. Not to mention the article provides some examples how the police chief didn't support the administration. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

4th draft

ThaddeusB, this looks good. There are a couple spelling tweaks I made, and mild rephrasals. I'll drop the bit about Alaska law, but I can't get on board if we don't mention the picketing, as per below.

Palin was elected on a platform of change and began to implement that agenda almost immediately. Shortly after taking office in October 1996, she eliminated the position of museum director and asked the Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons to resign, saying that she felt they did not support her administration. Palin called the request, which was accompanied by a request for updated resumes, a way to find out who supported her. She also instituted a temporary policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, which she justified by saying they needed to become better acquainted with her policies.

According to Emmons, Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship with her -- first in early October then in detail on October 28th. Palin asked if Emmons would object to censorship, to which Emmons replied she would, and that "it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too." Palin also raised the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied "it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then." In early December, Palin was the first to speak about the issue publicly, using it as an example of discussions she'd had with her department heads. She said that "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature" and that it "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy." Ultimately no books were removed from the library.

In January 1997, Palin notified Stambaugh and Emmons that they were being fired. She said she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration. She rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day, after a wave of public support for Emmons, stating that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Stambaugh, however, was fired and filed a lawsuit. A court dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

Like.liberation 19:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

All changes are improvements. I support this version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. Excellent work, I fully support this version. Thanks to Like.liberation and ThaddeusB for your work on this. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there was one spelling error which I corrected. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment The source does not say she wanted the letters of resignations because they didn't support Palin, but rather she wanted the letters to find out who supports her. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the bit about circling the library is unnecessary piling-on, but consensus means compromise, and thus I support this version. Bobblehead, do you want to suggest a re-wording?--Paul (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How about: "Shortly after taking office in October 1996, she eliminated the position of museum director and asked the Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons to resign, saying that she wanted to find out who supported her administration." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin was elected on a platform of change and began to implement that agenda almost immediately." Since the next sentence gives the chronology of "almost immediately." Less wordy. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin eliminated the position of museum director and asked for the resignations of Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons. Palin stated that she felt they did not support her administration.(cite) Kaisershatner (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin was elected on a platform of change. Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin eliminated the position of museum director and asked for both letters of resignation and updated resumes from Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons. Palin described this as a way to find out who supported her. She instituted a temporary policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, stating the staff needed to become better acquainted with her policies. Kaisershatner (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

5th Draft

Edits for word choice/length. I haven't chased down the refs but this draft assumes the correctness of Bobblehead's view about the resignation letters, so correct that if it is wrong: Kaisershatner (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin was elected on a platform of change. Shortly after taking office in October 1996, she eliminated the position of museum director and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons. Palin stated she wanted to find out who supported her. She instituted a temporary policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, stating they first needed to become better acquainted with her policies.

According to Emmons, she and Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship—first in early October then in detail on October 28. Emmons stated Palin asked her if she would object to censorship, and Emmons replied "it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too." Palin raised the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied "it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then." In early December, Palin spoke publicly about the issue, using it as an example of a discussion she'd had with her department heads. Palin said, "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature," and said adding that censorship "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy." No books were removed from the library.

In January 1997, Palin notified Stambaugh and Emmons that they were being fired, stating she believed the two did not fully support her administration. She rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day, after a wave of public outcry, and stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Stambaugh was fired and filed a lawsuit, which was later dismissed by a court finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

Comment: For the most part, I support these changes. There is one sentence that I would like to see tweaked for style. It is in the second paragraph:

" Palin said' many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature,' and said that censorship "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy."

Using the word "said" twice in the same sentence is a little clunky. I would suggest something like: Palin said that 'many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature,' and that censorship "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy."

If this sentence is tweaked a bit, I will support this draft. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaisershatner, if you want the exact wording of one source, here's ADN referring to the resignations:

Palin told the Daily News back then the letters were just a test of loyalty as she took on the mayor's job...

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html

I agree with Classicfilms that the "said... said" could be reworded. Maybe one of those "said...adding that" formulations. In all, I support. Thanks for the edit. At this point, we've got something publishable. Maybe there's a better way to word it, but the agreement we've got seems most important. Like.liberation 22:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. The first sentence looks tacked on.. Perhaps something like "After being elected on a platform of change, Palin eliminated the position of museum director and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons shortly after taking office in October 1996. Palin stated she wanted to find out who supported her." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, I think we can leave that first sentence. It's an important thought, and it could just as well stand alone. Palin was a change candidate, that's why she beat Stein. Or as Michelet used to say, beginning his courses on history: "England, messieurs, is an island." Everything else that follows results from that, so we don't need to demote it by making it a dependent clause. Like.liberation 23:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an important thought and one that should be included in the article, but its location reads as if it is tacked on, more as a counter to the remainder of the paragraph, than an actual encyclopedic addition to the article. Also, I'm wondering if the "platform of change" would be more appropriate for the preceding paragraph that is actually about the election, rather than the paragraph about her first actions as mayor. It just seems odd to me that the article would say that she won the election in one paragraph (which includes arguments she used against Stein), but then say in the next that she was elected on a platform of change. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think I agree with Bobblehead that the "platform of change" works better appended to the preceding para or inserted higher up in that para. It doesn't really directly go to the subject of this paragraph/s, ie her early actions in office. Looking at the context within the larger article for the first time, I would support removing the first sentence "Palin...change" and putting it into her campaign for mayor para. Above, I made the small style modification for review. Kaisershatner (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The version 4 first sentence read better. Why not just use it instead? "Palin was elected on a platform of change and began to implement that agenda almost immediately"--Paul (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about the last sentence of the second paragraph "No books were removed from the library". It also comes across as tacked on. While I do think it is important to acknowledge that no books were removed from the library, perhaps a rewording is in order? Something like "In the end, no books were removed from the library" or "After the two discussions in October, the subject was not revisited and no books were removed from the library." --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

6th draft

I pushed the change platform into the proceeding paragraph and added a tiny detail. Slight rewording on the resignation line for readability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In 1996, Palin challenged and defeated incumbent John Stein for the office of mayor, running on a platform of change. In the campaign, she vowed to replace "stale leadership" and criticized Stein for what she called wasteful spending and high taxes. She also highlighted issues such as abortion, religion and gun control. Though the position of mayor is non-partisan, the state Republican Party ran advertisements on her behalf. During her first term, the state Republican Party began grooming her for higher office.

Shortly after taking office in October 1996 Palin began to implement the change she'd promised. She eliminated the position of museum director and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons. Palin stated this request was to find out who supported her. She instituted a temporary policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, stating they first needed to become better acquainted with her policies.

According to Emmons, she and Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship -- first in early October then in detail on October 28th. Emmons stated Palin asked her if she would object to censorship, and Emmons replied "it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too." Palin raised the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied "it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then." In early December, Palin spoke publicly about the issue, using it as an example of a discussion she'd had with her department heads. Palin said, "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature," adding that censorship "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy." No books were removed from the library.

In January 1997, Palin notified Stambaugh and Emmons that they were being fired, stating she believed the two did not fully support her administration. She rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day, after a wave of public outcry, and stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Stambaugh was fired and filed a lawsuit, which was later dismissed by a court finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

On January 30, 1997, signed letters from Palin were given to Emmoms and Stambaugh stating, "I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment..." The three met to discuss the situation the next day. Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons after meeting with her and what Anchorage Daily News called "a wave of public support for Emmons." Palin stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Stambaugh was fired as planned and filed a lawsuit which was later dismissed by a court that found the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason, including a political one.

Hope you don't mind, but I consolidated the referencing for the last sentence into one. The reference at the end of the sentence was the same one at the middle of the sentence, so the middle one was redundant. One question though, shouldn't the sentence end with ", including a political one." That is part of the judge's ruling, so it seems odd to just leave it off. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm gone for a day and your almost back to what I purposed earlier. Theosis4u (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I've refactored a lengthy discussion on the book censorship paragraph to here --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

---

On the third paragraph. (1) "In January 1997," should be "On January 30th 1997". This really sets the time frame between the book situation and the "intend to terminate your employmen" letters. And again, we should use the language of the letter. You have, "that they were being fired". I think what I wrote earlier is the most accurate description. (2) : This should not exist as is. "She rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day, after a wave of public outcry, " We can't substaniate that it was the "public outcry" that lead to Palin's change of mind. The ordering of the events would leave one to think so. I've yet to see what the evidence of "public outcry" is. This all occurred in the course of 24 hours remember. I suggest this instead:

On January 30th 1997, signed letters from Palin were dropped off at Emmoms and Stambaugh's desk stating,"I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment..." It referenced Feburary 13 as their last day. The next day the three met briefly at the Wasilla City Hall in the afternoon to discuss the situation. Palin also called them twice later before making her decision. It has been reported that there was "public outcry" to the letters. Palin announced her decision later that day, stating she now felt that Emmons supported her but didn't feel the same about Stambaugh. Palin claimed she now had Emmons' assurance that she was behind her and would support her efforts to merge the library and museum operations. Palin announced though that Stambaugh would be terminated. Stambaugh filed a lawsuit believing he had a contract that prohibited the city from firing him without cause. A court later dismissed the suit, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.

Theosis4u (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have completely reworked the last paragraph. Let me know what you think.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your third paragraph is now the best writeup on this situation - even compared against all the sources on it. Very good job! I believe it describes the situation very accurately and from a NPOV. But.. still leaves just enough content for those that want to say there's a conspiracy to have enough to look into it - without wikipedia giving any actual weight to it. Theosis4u (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement on what was there. One question though, is the "All three met the next day" sentence necessary? The next sentence indicates that Palin met with Emmons and the sentence about Stambaugh could be modified to say that after meetings with Stambaugh and separately with his lawyer that Stambaugh was still terminated.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference about a meeting with Stambaugh and an attorney on that Friday? I haven't seen that one yet. My purposed sentence comes from this , "The three met briefly at Wasilla City Hall Friday afternoon, and Palin called them twice at Stambaugh's home before making the decision." Theosis4u (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good rewrite, ThaddeusB, although I agree with Bobblehead that the next-day meeting could probably go. Like.liberation 03:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Like.liberation (talk • contribs)

I believe the meeting is vital to an accurate summary of the situation. With a meeting and phone calls after the letter about the situation paints a different picture compared to someone who sends the letter and then terminates with no discussion. Especially in light that for one employee she changed her mind and for the other she did not. Theosis4u (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I original didn't have this sentence and mentioned the meetings separately. It was actually less wordy this way. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets look at it another way. If your boss tells you on thurs. that he might fire you tomorrow and he'll let you know at the end of the day and then walks off. If he then talks with you about it three times on Friday before his decision compared to not talking to you at all - would their be a different POV implied to your manager based upon the two circumstances? Theosis4u (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The meetings should be included, it's just the how that is of concern. As an example, if the rescinding sentence were re-written as such: "Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day after meeting with her and what Anchorage Daily News called "a wave of public support for Emmons." As far as a source about meeting with Stambaugh and his lawyer, see this memo from Palin. According to the memo the meeting was with Stambaugh and his lawyer. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That turn allot of what the Chief said in his interviews, doesn't it? I would offer that we stick with my recommend sentences about the "wave of support" as well as the meetings but include reference that the Chief had legal counsel. Theosis4u (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The memo certainly gives Palin's interpretation of what happened.;) The chief's interpretation is covered here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Every source prior to that one (date Sept. 7 2008) has the Chief claiming he was never given a reason. Either he was lying in all the sources or he was reported on inaccurately. Theosis4u (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The follow change would be OK by me. The only problem is that it is a very slight synth to say that "no resolution was reached." I mean it is quite apparent, but no source actually says those words. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On January 30, 1997, signed letters from Palin were given to Emmoms and Stambaugh stating, "I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment..." Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day after meeting with her and what Anchorage Daily News called "a wave of public support for Emmons." Palin stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Palin also spoke with Stambaugh at least three times about the matter, but ultimately no resolution was reached and he was fired as planned. Stambaugh filed a lawsuit which was later dismissed by a court that found the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason, including a political one.

Perhaps eliminate "ulitmately no resolution was reached and" then? I agree that it's quite apparent. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it isn't really needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with the change. Nice job. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Book censorship discussion

Ok, this new source you've found is mentioning an existing policy about citizens being able to object to library material. I don't understand why the librarian is freaking out and talking about the ACLU? We know from the ex-mayor that Palin was inquiring about the issue because people had objections about inappropriate language in some of the books. Why didn't the librarian just mention the existing policy and that was the procedure to handle questions about library materials? It couldn't be that the librarian didn't like Palin and was dishing out some out fashion attitude? With this new reference that you found, I'm really starting to believe this is nothing but a non-issue now. Theosis4u (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! I also missed this: Emmons said in the conversations with now-Mayor Palin in October, she reminded her again that the city has a policy in place. “But it seamed clear to me that wasn't really what she was talking about anyhow,” Now it is Emmons OPINION that Palin was talking about giving her a list of books to remove instead of asking about the book challenge policy?--Paul (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Seems like an attitude issue. Theosis4u (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The article makes it rather clear that Emmons was under the impression that Palin was not asking about submitting books to be reviewed under the existing policy, but rather that Palin intended to submit a list of books to her that Palin wanted the library to stop carrying. Is this a she said-she said instance, yes, but there's no reason to take Palin's word over that of the librarian's... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And what is the reason for taking the librarian's word over Palin's?--Paul (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that we are... Palin has admitted that she discussed book censorship of with the librarian. The only difference between the two stories is that Palin says it was purely hypothetical, while Emmons was under the impression it was not. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if it was not hypothetical, all the librarian had to do was tell Palin to follow the policy about submitting a complaint in regards to the materials. End of story, right? Theosis4u (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tell me this. What is the difference between "book censorship" and a policy that allows books to be removed or placed only in certain locations within the library? This whole situation needs to be reviewed for complete removal. Theosis4u (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me just call it for what it very well could be. The librarian was activity using the "book censorship" term politically against Palin to either give her attitude (she support other mayor) or maintain some job protection in light of the "please resign letter". There is no difference between "book censorship" and what the library policy allows for citizens to bring up objections about materials. The librarian was simply sidestepping the issue with Palin when she could of simply told Palin about the policy in place. Theosis4u (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. The difference is that if the policy is followed it is the librarian's decision if the book is to be removed, while the discussion Palin had with Emmons was more in line with a mayor telling the librarian which books to remove, thus done outside the policy. Also, it should be noted that the source rather clearly says that it was Palin that brought up book censorship and not the librarian. Palin was the one that used it as an example of her having a discussion with her department heads in front of the state liquor board... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Palin is new in office. Citizens inquired about certain books. New mayor asks about library and librarians policy on the issue. Librarian say, "“This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy,” Emmons stressed Saturday. “She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library.” Come on, this is a joke. The non-confrontational response to Palin would of been. "Your welcome to fill out the forms yourself to request the review but the decision is given by the library system." I believe the policy allowed you to challenge it and go above the local librarian. So, I'm still at a lost why this is even an issue unless we are making the claim that new local mayor seems to follow up on her citizens concerns. Plus, the librarians quote above seems an opinion not back by direct reference to any of the quotes she offered from Palin. Theosis4u (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Theosis4u, are you even reading the source, or are you just applying your own bias and inferring what was said? Seriously.. Palin did not ask how one goes about removing a book from the library, but rather "Palin said she asked Emmons how she would respond to censorship." This is not a concerned citizen submitting a request to have a book removed from the library, but rather a government official telling a library which books it can not carry. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your inferring yourself here. I'll admit I am doing a little inferring myself based upon the ex-mayors reference that he knew/though that she was inquiring about citizens complaining about inappropriate language. I don't think your quote actually is clear cut by itself as saying "Palin asked the librarian if she would respect her personal requests to remove books from the library." I think the librarian was saying just enough in her summary of Palin's words to let others infer what you are. Theosis4u (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of inferring and supposing going on here. The source for "no books were removed" really says this:

Were any books censored banned? June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed. Pinell-Stephens also had no record of any phone conversations with Emmons about the issue back then. Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time.

They obviously looked at the formal book remove process to see if this controversy resulted in removing any books. It seems there is very little rhetorical or logical distance between the new Mayor discussing library censorship policy with the librarian, and the existing formal method for removing books from the library. I think there is much less than meets the eye to this controversy.--Paul (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ummm. Your inference is not supported by the source. We simply can not apply that kind of interpretation to the sources or else we get into the original research realm.. The source says that Palin told them that she asked the librarian what she thought about censorship. The source also indicates that Palin was aware of the library's policy:

Emmons said the current Wasilla policy, which she described as written in more general terms than the borough's, also worked procedurally in a book-challenge case last year. Emmons said then-council-woman Palin was distressed about the issue when it came up, indicating she was aware of the city's book-challenge policy.

Emmons said in the conversations with now-Mayor Palin in October, she reminded her again that the city has a policy in place. “But it seamed clear to me that wasn't really what she was talking about anyhow,” Emmons added. “I just hope it doesn't come up again.”

On a side note, whoever typed up that reprint really needs to work on their spelling.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bobblehead. I think the reference to the city council meeting implies enough to state Palin did know something about a policy. I'm still not sure of how we go from that to the implications that Emmons makes here though, '“But it seamed clear to me that wasn't really what she was talking about anyhow,”". What's their to report about that except using the direct quote of Emmons and let the reader to decide to determine what they will of it? [by the way, who has any respect for reporters to tell a straight story after investigating the issues behind Palin? :) ]Theosis4u (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the current wording does a pretty good job of indicating that Palin agrees with what was said in the meeting, just that she disagrees with the interpretation that Emmons had. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion (and this is just my opinion and is not for the article), based on all the evidence, there were personality conflicts between Palin and Emmons/Stambaugh and that is the main reason she wanted them out. She simply had trouble working with them and the firings had little to do with politics or issues. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

7th draft

Wow! Quite a bit of text here... I looked through all of the above and put together what appears to be the 7th draft you all have agreed upon. If I have missed a change or a point, it is due to the amount of text above rather than an attempt to change anything - so please fix it. Otherwise, it looks like we have a section ready for the main article. It would be nice to see this added today. What does everyone think? -Classicfilms (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a minor grammatical correction in paragraph four, adding a definite article (the) and itals. It was: Anchorage Daily News. I changed it to: the Anchorage Daily News. -Classicfilms (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Another grammatical point:

The beginning of the first line of the 4th paragraph currently reads:

"On January 30, 1997, signed letters from Palin were given to Emmoms and Stambaugh stating..."

It should be changed to:

"Palin gave signed letters to Emmoms and Stambaugh on January 30, 1997 which stated..."

-Classicfilms (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Looks pretty good, but about the "groomed" reference. I read it start to finish, and it's pretty thin on this point (comes up in last section only, nice work by the headline writers). Three people on the record, one of them a Palin opponent: "The national Republican Party was encouraging local party officials to groom a new generation of candidates, officials say. [emphasis added] Palin was an obvious selection, say local party officials Roy and June Burkhart of Willow. [emphasis added] Roy is head of the District 15 party, while June sits on the state party's executive board...[Palin] headed straight to her next race, entering the 2002 Republican primary for lieutenant governor. The winner was going to run at the side of Frank Murkowski...Officially, the party under chairman Randy Ruedrich remained neutral. But it didn't always feel that way to Palin's opponents, [Gail] Phillips said recently. [emphasis added] "It was Randy that really talked the Republican Party into her being the bright and shining star, to the point there was a lot of preference within the leadership," Phillips said. "Boy, it was there. The three of us would discuss it among ourselves. We were saying, hey, how about experience?" The citation supports "Some local Palin supporters and one of Palin's political opponents thought Palin was being groomed for higher office by the state Republican Party." Maybe not a really big deal, but the article says something different than a broad assertion that the Republicans were grooming her. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair critique (sorry to have missed it). Perhaps it would be best for you to offer a rewrite of the section for review and if we achieve consensus, we can make the change. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, instead of "During her first term, the state Republican Party began grooming her for higher office," how about "Some local officials and one of Palin's opponents have stated they believed Palin was being groomed for higher office by the state Republican Party." NB I hardly consider this a significant part of her career (is it notable for high-ranking officials to have started as low-ranking ones that were groomed by the party?) but I guess it doesn't hurt to include it if it is sourced and objectively factual.Kaisershatner (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Just an added thought that struck me - wasn't there a minor local offical, state senator or something, whom the Democrats groomed for higher office by giving him a choice speaking slot at their convention? What ever happened to that guy? :) Kaisershatner (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with "During her first term, the state Republican Party began grooming her for higher office," (what's wrong with it?) but I do object to "Some local officials and one of Palin's opponents have stated they believed Palin was being groomed for higher office by the state Republican Party." This is an ugly sentence, and almost weasely (have stated they believed). I'd rather omit the whole thing rather than put in the "sentence designed by a committee"!--Paul (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Paul - the problem with the original sentence is that the citation doesn't support it. You are right about my horrible rewrite though. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008

I think the "Fresh faced launced Palin" source supports the original sentence: "The high-profile support from local Republicans was hardly surprising, however. Party officials say Palin was already being groomed for bigger and better things, even as she talked about sewers and road-paving projects. In Alaska's fastest-growing region, Palin was the fresh young face of the suddenly dominant Republicans."--Paul (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Paul - who are the "party officials" the author means? I think it's the two in the final section plus the one Palin opponent. Maybe I'm reading this incorrectly? Kaisershatner (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I read it as Republican party officials. Who else would know? I can't imagine why we wouldn't include this.--Paul (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

8th draft

Adding that I support current version per Thaddeus below, we can add this and argue about the nits being groomed after. Kaisershatner (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've added "term limits" to the list of items Palin ran on, as it is the same sentence in the NYTs article used to source "abortion religion and gun control".--Paul (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Edit completed.--Paul (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please replace the two paragraphs at 2.1 "Wasilla" which currently read:

In 1996, Palin challenged and defeated incumbent John Stein for the office of mayor.[19] In the campaign, she criticized Stein for what she called wasteful spending and high taxes,[20] and highlighted issues such as abortion, religion and gun control.[21] Though the position of mayor is non-partisan, the state Republican Party ran advertisements on her behalf.[21] During her first term, the state Republican Party began grooming her for higher office.[19] In October 1996, she asked the Wasilla police chief, librarian, public works director, and finance director to resign, and instituted a policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters.[22] In January 1997, Palin notified the police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and the town librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, that they were being fired.[23] Palin said in a letter that she wanted a change because she believed the two did not fully support her administration. She rescinded the firing of the librarian, but not the police chief.[24] The chief filed a lawsuit, but a court dismissed it, finding that the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason.[25] According to Anne Kilkenny, a Democrat who observed the City Council, Palin also brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting, but did not follow through with the idea.[21]

With the following four paragrahs, per the broad consensus below:

In 1996, Palin challenged and defeated incumbent John Stein for the office of mayor, running on a platform of change. In the campaign, she vowed to replace "stale leadership" and criticized Stein for what she called wasteful spending and high taxes. She also highlighted issues such as abortion, religion, gun control, and term limits. Though the position of mayor is non-partisan, the state Republican Party began grooming her for higher office, and ran advertisements on her behalf.

Shortly after taking office in October 1996 Palin began to implement the change she'd promised. She eliminated the position of museum director and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from Wasilla police chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak, and librarian Mary Ellen Emmons. Palin stated this request was to find out who supported her. She instituted a temporary policy requiring department heads to get her approval before talking to reporters, stating they first needed to become better acquainted with her policies.

Acording to Emmons, she and Palin twice discussed the question of library censorship—first in early October then in detail on October 28. Emmons stated Palin asked her if she would object to censorship, and Emmons replied "it would not be just me ... the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too." Palin raised the possibility of people circling the library in protest, to which Emmons replied "it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then." In early December, Palin spoke publicly about the issue, using it as an example of a discussion she'd had with her department heads. Palin said, "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature," adding that censorship "was discussed in the context of a professional question being asked in regards to library policy." No books were removed from the library.

Palin gave signed letters to Emmons and Stambaugh on January 30, 1997 that stated: "I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment..." Palin rescinded the firing of Emmons the next day after meeting with her and after what the Anchorage Daily News called "a wave of public support for Emmons." Palin stated that her concerns had been alleviated when Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Palin also spoke with Stambaugh at least three times about the matter, but ultimately he was fired as planned. Stambaugh filed a lawsuit which was later dismissed by a court that found the mayor had the right to fire city employees for nearly any reason, including a political one.

I suppport this version. I do feel the groomed comment is out of place, however, it is best to just leave it since it is already there and unrelated to our proposed changes. It can then be addressed separately. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ThaddeusB, what are you suggesting? If we take the "groomed" sentence out of our changes it will be gone, as our changes will overwrite the reference to Republican grooming on the main page.--Paul (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I think it would better fit in later in the Wasilla section, since it seems out of place chronologically in its current position. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I support all of the recent changes - I would just like to add a small grammatical change as proposed above:

The beginning of the first line of the 4th paragraph currently reads:

"On January 30, 1997, signed letters from Palin were given to Emmoms and Stambaugh stating..."

It should be changed to:

"Palin gave signed letters to Emmoms and Stambaugh on January 30, 1997 which stated..."

If you agree, I would like to ask another editor to make the change - perhaps as an 8th draft below? Maybe 8 times the charm... Good work everyone. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made Classicfilms' requested change. I also made an effort to incorporate the grooming info better by changing the two sentences to one: "Though the position of mayor is non-partisan, the state Republican Party began grooming her for higher office.[43] and ran advertisements on her behalf.[30]" Are we done now? "My name is Paul.h, and I approve this draft" :-) --Paul (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Support: Thanks Paul, I needed a good laugh today :-) I too support the above version - thanks as well for adding my suggested change. I'm also fine with the changes you made. I should have been more clear above about an "8th draft" - I just meant this version above with tweaks - I added a subhead above it for just for clarity. Anyway, I'd like to see all of this wrapped up as well so we can move on to other tasks. -Classicfilms (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

supported with these two comments. One, let's get what we have posted and then let new tweaks get worked out against this version if needed. I'm expecting that the ACLU paragraph might get tweaks, but the way it stands is reasonable. Second, I believe these two sources should be integrated somehow. A) FROM THE ARCHIVE: Palin: Library censorship inquiries 'Rhetorical' B) PDF warning Palin Letter to Chief and Attorney . Theosis4u (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, paragraph three has already integrated A FROM THE ARCHIVE: Palin: Library censorship inquiries 'Rhetorical'. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Made a minor tweak to a reference to use the page number for Johnson's book; see #Johnson cites -- page numbers below. I made no changes to article text. He also said that book had material on the librarian thing, so you might want to see what he has to say about it. GRBerry 18:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor grammar fixes to draft8. I support inclusion. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, I'll state that I support the current version (which is slightly, but not materially different than what I first said support to.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the Johnson book, at pp. 46-47, says about the firings:

Stein's loss was a bitter one. Many of his supporters viewed the young mayor as a kid playing a grown-up game. Police Chief Irl Stambaugh, in particular, made it clear he did not care for the new arrangement.

"I told them that I understood they had supported Mayor Stein," Sarah said of her first meeting with department heads. "But I told them they couldn't continue to support him now that he was out of office." Sarah asked the department heads to resign and reapply for their positions. She requested resignations from the police chief, Public Works Director Jack Felton, Finance Director Duane Dvorak, and Librarian Mary Ellen emmons. The city's museum manager, Jack Cooper, had already resigned when Sarah eliminated his position. The new mayor's startling demand for resignations tested the department heads' willingness to transfer their loyalties to the new adminstration."

I'm not sure how much that adds to the proposed langauge above, but I think it places the firings in a larger context. Coemgenus 20:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. One possibility would be to add this long quote as a footnote to the final paragraph. Otherwise I'm not certain how we would integrate it. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I see the "Shortly after taking office in October 1996 Palin began to implement the change she'd promised." sentence has made it back in. I'm still not sure what it adds to the article as a whole, but if everyone else is fine with it, don't let me get in the way. ;) I also made a few grammar fixes. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Good catch Bobblehead. I agree with you - this is an awkward sentence that should be changed. ::How about:

"Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin eliminated the position..." which would combine the first two sentences. If you like that version and if other editors agree, go ahead and change it. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha, now I see what happened. While it was discussed, the sentence was never actually taken out. But yes, the your proposed rewording works for me. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the sentence from:

"Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin began to implement the change she'd promised. She eliminated the position of museum director and asked for..."

to

"Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin eliminated the position of museum director and asked for..."

The current version is less awkward than the original. Since the platform of change was discussed in the first paragraph, I do not see that this will change the intent of the paragraph.-Classicfilms (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Somehow this sentence got taken out again. "Palin was elected on a platform of change and began to implement that agenda almost immediately.[31]" With that sentence in, the sentence Bobblehead is talking about makes sense. I think this is an important point and it has got to go back in. I don't support the current version without it. Or at least some way of tying change and the firings closer together.--Paul (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul - I think this is a fair request. Why don't you go ahead and add it to the first paragraph. I would support it. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said up in the 6th draft section, it's a bit disjointed to say she ran for office, here's her platform, she was groomed for higher office by the Republicans, and then go back to her election platform. If we cover her platform for change adequately in the first paragraph, then it should be redundant to repeat it in the second paragraph. It also comes across odd that her platform of change is in the first sentence of two paragraphs in a row.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Right - which is why it makes sense to restore the sentence in the first paragraph but not later ones. The first paragraph talks specifically about the election and restoring the sentence there would work. So I agree with Paul on that issue. I also agree with Bobblehead that it is awkward in the sentence from which I removed it. I'm not entirely certain where "Palin was elected on a platform of change and began to implement that agenda almost immediately.[31]" should be restored in the first paragraph so perhaps another editor should restore it. We also need to track down the actual reference the number 31 is referring to. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I restored the sentence. Look at it now. And let's not quibble over awkward. If we are all okay with content. Let's get this over with. The article is going to semi-protect very soon, so it won't stay this way for long anyway. Again I Support --Paul (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the first sentence of the first paragraph already cover her election platform: "In 1996, Palin challenged and defeated incumbent John Stein for the office of mayor, running on a platform of change". But like I said, it's not that big an issue to hold off putting it on to the main page.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request - Anchorage Daily News

This looks like a good External link, as it appears balanced, comprehensive and it's from Alaska. It's also updated on an ongoing basis: http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/ Flatterworld (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. 79.74.252.173 (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the fact that it's from Alaska means it's balanced, but it seems comprehensive, so I support adding it, formatting as
Alaska Daily News ongoing coverage of Sarah Palin. --Crunch (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

oppose In a google search for "anchorage daily news bias" several sites pop up identifying ADN with a pretty significant left-leaning bias. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support A reliable and independent source with substantial and encyclopedic coverage of the subject. If one leans far enough to the right, the center can appear to be leaning left. One of the largest circulation papers in a candidate's home state should not be excluded as a reliable source on such flimsy grounds.Edison (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Same goes for all biases, but if you do a search for sites with "anchorage daily news bias" nothing comes up as identifying it as right leaning, other news agencies even identify this one as slightly leftist. Moot point now anyhow. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. A reliable and informative source. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I see no reason to exclude it. It adds value and is considered independent. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks like a fine source. Important paper in her home state, it would seem to be a POV issue to not have it. Hobit (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note We already have News and commentary from The New York Times so I would suggest News and commentary from Anchorage Daily News Flatterworld (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Support, no reason to see it as "left-leaning". JamesMLane t c 01:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Support a google search is not sufficient evidence to label something "left-leaning". Hobartimus (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please add the following external link per consensus: --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
News and commentary from Anchorage Daily News

•  Done in the format Crunch suggested, which is the one that has consensus. GRBerry 13:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion reference should include "personal opinion"

I have this on Talk:Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Abortion_wording as well. I think we should include the abortion reference as a "personal opinion" and then let the main political positions page refer to the following below:

ADN - Palin on issues.

Q: If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?

A: Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values."

If someone could please include the above references in the appropriate manner. I'm not 100% sure I've been able to maintain objectively in response to the hypocrisy I've witness around Palin. Theosis4u (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to add this info, but as I was doing so the page got full protected again due to continued edit wars. Sigh. See the talk page for my attempted edit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My view would be to hold off until someone directly comes out and asks her "Do you support Roe vs Wade?". I don't think the interviewer pinned her down. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A direct "answer" would be nice, but this reference should definitely go in the article as it gives more context to the other opinions that very well might be "personal". Without this reference, it's easy to imply the others are political statements against Roe V. Wade. Theosis4u (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for POV Tag

The one consensus we have on this page is that there's no consensus (See comment above.) As there's no consensus that the current article is NPOV, shouldn't we have a tag to alert readers of our intense disagreement with each other?GreekParadise (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

haha, yea right! Slap one on Obama first. Nowhere in Obama's article do I find mention of him voting against the born alive act, or do I read about HIS family such as Malik Abongo Obama...I cant learn about Rezko or Ayres on Obama's article....thats because the typical wikipedian- a white male, aged 35 and under, techi, socialist, in favor of smoking pot will typically hate Palin and want to fill her article with 'controversey.' that is what many people want....they want to add a bunch of controversey to this article. We all know it.

• Approve This page is not NPOV, and the consensus process has stalled. Spiff1959 (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

New information on the Palins' choice of churches

The NYT has new information on why the Palins changed churches;

One of the musical directors at the church, Adele Morgan, who has known Ms. Palin since the third grade, said the Palins moved to the nondenominational Wasilla Bible Church in 2002, in part because its ministry is less “extreme” than Pentecostal churches like the Assemblies of God, which practice speaking in tongues and miraculous healings.

Now that we have this piece of information we could add it to the religion paragraph at the tail end of the article, if anybody cares to rework it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like further support for the existing statement that Palin is a non-denominational Christian, although it hardly seems necessary because we already have it in her own words. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

irrelevant. Obama has the monopoly on bizzarre churches, and barely a mention in his article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

oops forgot to mention: Obama's church is black liberation theology....interesting how the Obama article completely leaves that out! But then again, the typical wikipedian: a white male, age 35 and under, a tekkie, a pro-obama, anti-palin socialist will conveniently leave that out! I know how the typical wikipeian works. He will pump up the palin article full of controversey and leave it out of Obama's. When you confront him on it, he has a nice little pre-packaged excuse "well thats over THERE and this is HERE...two wrongs dont make a right....blah blah". Its all bogus. If you go out of your way to describe all of Palin's churches including their theology, then you have to mention black liberation theology on Obama's article without issuing the repetitious excuse of "these are two different articles", because thats the point-- that is precisly how the typical white male tekkie wikipedians exploit wikipedia with POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely ignore the foregoing anon rant and respond to Phlegm Rooster's serious point. The quotation is from a member of the church who highlights one difference from the other church, but doesn't even allege that Palin told her that that difference is why she switched. (BTW, speaking of "that that", I note that the Times removed a "that" in quotin from the video. Shame on them.) I think it's too peripheral to the Palin bio to include what amounts to speculation about her reasons for choosing one church over another. JamesMLane t c 09:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the pro-Palin folks should be happy that the Palins were smart enough to get out of that church while the getting was good, unlike Obama. And the speculation was by someone who has known her since the third grade. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Has she changed churches, though? She spoke at the Assemblies of God back in July, when its pastor stood next to her on the stage and thanked God that she was Governor because she'll know what to do when the apocalypse comes and hundreds of thousands of Americans flood to Alaska. ANd she invited the founder of that Church to preside at her inauguration. Isn't she keeping a foot in both camps? And this "less extreme" church, the one she moved to, is the one where she sat and listened to David Bricker of Jews for Jesus describe terrorist attacks on Israel as the judgement of God, and then listened as her new pastor prayed for the conversion of Jews. 86.140.233.58 (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC).

In the Time interview she said her family switched from Roman Catholic to non-denominational. No mention of other churches. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the Time interview. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not concur with inclusion. Palin's religious views are already succintly and appropriately summarized in the Personal section of her biography. Her attendance at this or any other church provides nothing to alter the veracity or accuracy of those views. The inclusion of any church affiliations is a clear attempt to place undue bias and "guilt by association" (if, in fact, the church is "guilty" of something), and it does not belong there unless RS have evidence that a) she participated in ritualistic religious behavior outside of the norm, and b) her governing policy was demonstrably influenced by religious beliefs outside of the norm. I just checked, and it appears the maintainers of the Obama article has also resisted attempts to paint him through tangential church affiliations as also not meeting that criteria, with which I agree. Finally, the MSM is divulging much more researched background information on Palin now that some time has elapsed since her precipitous thrust into the spotlight. I would suggest others do more thorough research against current sources as well before requesting inclusion in this article. Fcreid (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral myself, but I trust folks here to puzzle it out. At the risk of repeating myself; it means she found the church too extreme, and left. If you are 44 and have known someone continuously since you were both 8 years old, your opinion can be said to be "well-informed". I think it makes the Palins look better, so if it doesn't go in the article because the pro-Palin people here oppose, it's no skin off my back. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson cites -- page numbers

{{editprotected}}

There are currently 13 cites to the Johnson book. I'll list here the pages to which those cites refer, and request that some administartor add them.

a - p. 15; b - pp. 15-16; c - p. 17; d - pp. 27-29; e - p. 31; f - pp. 27, 30; g - p. 21; h - p. 45; i - p. 65; j - p. 80; k - p. 81; l - p. 107 (there's probably a better cite for this elsewhere); m - p. 39.

The book also contains some insight into the librarian firing, but lets do the non-controversial edits first before getting into that. Coemgenus 15:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Great job. Kudos. I support the expedited addition of page cites. Thanks, Coemgenus. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

a, b and c are all in the same paragraph and no other source is used in the paragraph. I'll do this as one citing pp 15-17.

d, e, and f are all in the next paragraph and no other source is used in the paragraph. I'll do this as one citing pp 27-31.

None of the other uses are combinable. So we'll end up with 9 separate references for the book. But unless we totally change the reference style to a notes & references, this is unavoidable. And I can't recommend a change to the reference style here. Unless I hear an objection soon, I'm going to do this. GRBerry 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Done [3]. (ec). GRBerry 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something inline with WP:CITESHORT would be in order? It still keeps 9 references to the book, but it at least reduces the amount of typing.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That section is what I had in mind when I mentioned changing the referencing style on the article. But changing referencing styles is usually considered contentious enough that it shouldn't be done without a consensus for such a change. (I think the contentiousness relates to edit wars from before my time about reference style A versus style B.) If you think you can generate consensus for that change, more power to you. I certainly wouldn't object. GRBerry 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding those page numbers. I don't think a style change would be contentious, at least not when dealing with a book, as opposed to a newspaper article. When I rewrote Calvin Coolidge and Grover Cleveland, I cited in that style and no one raised objections. Coemgenus 17:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage

• {{editprotected}}

Proposed edit--Rtphokie (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC):

The McCain-Palin campaign refused interview requests for Palin saying calling the news media "piranhas" complaining that Palin was not being treated with "respect and deference." Reporters have expressed concerns with the lack of opportunity to ask questions directly of Palin. Since the annoucement as McCain's running mate, Palin has granted a single interview to People Magazine and Charles Gibson of ABC News.

Oppose If this is relevant at all (and one can argue that WP:RECENT and WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper suggest it is not) it would be relevant to the campaign article, not the biography of Sarah Palin.--Paul (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be more appropriate for the campaign article. Kelly ^hi! 16:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Support some reference to this although the suggested wording could be improved. Her selection by McCain was an important event in her life. It's reasonable for her bio (as well as the campaign article) to include brief reference to the immediate consequences: (1) She gave a convention speech that was well-received by the Republican Party faithful; (2) Immediately thereafter, instead of plunging into a whirlwind of campaign activities, she was largely sequestered, a step that drew some criticism. Our article now includes the first point but omits the second. Both of them are relevant to the campaign and to her bio. JamesMLane t c 19:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Public Safely Commissioner Dismissal

I request that the sourced statement in which Palin stated that no pressure had been applied on Monegan to fire Wooten be reinstated. It is a newsworthy portion of the article and was redacted just prior to this article being protected.

I also request that the sentence regarding the Aug 1 announcement of a legislative investigation be moved up 6 sentences, from the end of the section, to a chronologically-correct position before the sentence regarding Palin confirming there had been multiple contacts from her office regarding Wooten (Aug 13). Spiff1959 (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit revision draft 1:
"On July 11, 2008, Palin dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, citing performance-related issues.[82] Monegan alleged he had been pressured to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten, and that his dismissal was retaliation for his failure to do so.[85][86] Palin publicly denied that any pressure to fire Wooten had been applied on Monegan. On August 1, the Alaska Legislature hired an independent investigator to review the situation.[91] Palin then asked the Alaska Attorney General to launch his own internal investigation [11] which led to her acknowledging on August 13 that there had been over twenty contacts made by her administration relating to Wooten[12], one of which resulted in her then suspending her Director of Boards and Commissions, Frank Bailey[13]. Palin stated that most of those calls were made without her knowledge, and reiterated that she did not fire Monegan because of Wooten.[85][88] The legislative investigation is scheduled to be completed in October 2008.[85]"
Spiff1959 (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that discussed in detail at Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal? Kelly ^hi! 21:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This is the summary in the main article that pertains to the spinoff you linked. Spiff1959 (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Campaign 2008

I request that "and media analysts" be removed from the sentence stating that palin's speech was well-received by the crowd and media analysts. This is an overly-broad statement that constitutes personal opinion and is unsourced. Spiff1959 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I Support the Edit request to remove the unsourced POV--MisterAlbert (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Not only is it a generalization that is unsourced, it's not universally true. I've heard and read several analysts who have pointed out several instances in that speech where Palin took liberties with the truth.--Appraiser (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I also support the suggested improvement. The statement is not only unsourced, it's false, as there were several media analysts who decried what they saw as Palin's excessive partisanship. JamesMLane t c 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this change as well. From what I've read it seems accurate, but it is not sourced and is just someone's opinion regardless. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support, I wrote that, and have soured on it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Appraiser above. Keeper ǀ 76 22:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Humor Mark Fiore

I wonder if we put a request into Mark Fiore if we could upload some political humor on the page: --MisterAlbert (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For various reasons (two killers include our coypright policies and maintaining a neutral point of view) we rarely include political humor in the article on the person who bears the brunt of the joke. It's also making fun of an underaged girl's writing abilities (see WP:BLP), and worst of all, not everyone would find it very funny. Mark Fiore has his own article, but considering that he lampoons everyone (but mostly conservatives), I don't think the fact that he takes aim at Sarah Palin this week is even notable to his own article. Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fiore is not making fun of a young girls writing abilties, the Spoof is obviously based on the Dick and Jane reading books {See Spot Run} used to teach children reading skills in elementary {grade} school. The spoof reduces politics to an elementary level. --MisterAlbert (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If a particular bit of political humor were spread widely and could reasonably be thought to have had an influence on the candidate's image, we could so report (providing facts about the effect of the lampoon). At this point, however, neither Fiore nor anyone else has reached that kind of significance with regard to Palin. JamesMLane t c 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for semi?

We are approaching the point where interest in this article is merely high and not totally ridiculous. As such it may be time to consider returning to semi-protection, as is typical of most high profile articles. A new thread has been opened regarding this. Dragons flight (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been unprotected. ffm 00:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Lobbying content

I removed the following from the daughter article on political positions of:

Palin has given jobs to friends and appointed lobbyists to oversee industries they used to represent. For example, Palin appointed a fund-raiser of hers, Deborah Richter, as director of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Division, and she hired Cora Crome as her fisheries-policy adviser. An industry lobbyist, Crome had worked for the United Fishermen of Alaska, and had been married to a wealthy commercial fisherman. As mayor of Wasilla, she hired the town's first Washington lobbyist to direct federal earmarks to the city. The lobbyist was paid $140,000 and brought $27 million worth of projects to the small town.

on account that this did not describe positions but rather administrative activities. Due to the significance of that edit, I want to bring this material here and allow for discussion as to how to incorporate it here. I have no immediate suggestions except for that I do not see a separate new section as necessary. Anyway, have fun. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gun control" as a campaign issue

It should be called Gun Rights. Gun Control implies that she intends to increase government control of guns, when in fact she seeks to do just the opposite- reduce government control of guns. She fights for gun owner rights, not the government's ability to control them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.252.180 (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Marathon Reference

{{editsemiprotected}} I think the mention of S.Palin's marathon accomplishment should reference the official result from that race organization's site: http://www.athlinks.com/results/6623/8598/Humpy-s-Marathon-Half-marathon-5K-Run-26-2Mi.aspx and no other biased comment. Thus reflecting a NPOV. --Gciriani (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No objection from me--ThaddeusB (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Object/Don't object As long as it's just a reference, I don't object. But I object to including this level of trivial detail within the article itself. --Crunch (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

When I first read the marathon reference in the article, I was skeptical because I could not find a real reference supporting it as a fact. All sources referring to it where indirect reporting. Running a marathon under 4 hours requires commitment, and time (training 6 days a week, from 40 minutes up to two hours every day, for at least 4 months prior to the event). That's why I think a reference is a must in this case, otherwise you will have other skeptical readers. And that's also why this piece of news is relevant, because it reveals the character of the person, thus adding to the biography.--Gciriani (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Added the time (as it seems significant) & reference --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the reference to one that points directly to her result. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I object to the use of this primary source in th article. Has any secondary source noted her running time? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not say you cannot use primary sources, it just says that great care must be exerted when using them. Since this source does not reveal unknown personal details, it seems perfectly reasonable to make use of it. Now you could object to it on the basis that the marathon detail is unneeded trivia. It does seem like a rather unimportant detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection changed

Hey guys, I changed the protection from full- to semi-. I've made as many changes as I can to reflect its new status, but I can't load this talk page to edit it in its entirety on my dialup connection. Please make the appropriate changes to the FAQ and templates if you could. Thanks! Happy editing! kmccoy (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let the POV onslaught resume! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WOOHOO Great to see thanks for a wise decision. Sitedown (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Um was this done unilaterally or after the proper consensus formed? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Time_for_semi-protection. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See [4] Couldn't read it yet but that's where they discussed it. Hobartimus (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion began at 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC) there. Hobartimus (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the discussion's start was announced on this page several hours before the unprotection occurred. Dragons flight (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin

There is another discussion about what to do with Palin (it is currently a disambiguation page) occurring at Talk:Palin#Consolidated_and_clear_discussion. All of the options (moving, where to redirect to, etc) are presented and being discussed there. Oren0 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding interviews

Palin has avoided media interviews during her vice-presidential campaign. Her campaigning has been confined to public appearances.

Interesting tidbit. QuackGuru 00:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like she will be giving some (or at least one) this coming week so I don't really think this is accurate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It remains accurate until that actually happens, otherwise it is crystal ball gazing. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This strong section strongly needs a strong stylistic face-lift

Many of Palin's political views are of a strong social conservative nature: she opposes abortion except when the life of the mother would otherwise be imperiled,[109] and is a member of Feminists for Life; she backs capital punishment,[110], opposes same-sex marriage,[51] and favors teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools.[111] She is also a member of the National Rifle Association and is a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.

Palin say she strongly supports "individual freedom and independence",[4] and she is known in Alaska for her strong opposition to what she views as excessive government spending and corruption.[112] She has strongly supported development of oil and natural gas in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[55]75.111.161.156 (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are your suggestions? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume 75 would like to reduce the frequency of the word strong. I concur. In fact, simply excising the word entirely from that paragraph would be a positive step. Ronnotel (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

strongly agreed--Paul (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I support removing all strongs. They loose all meaning if everything is strong and thus cancel each other out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bridge To Nowhere

As this is locked, I cannot add this. According to http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/675/ and an NPR story here she said "thanks but no thanks" after Congress actually had reneged. The bridge plan was already cancelled when she asked for it to not continue. This is notable in the artilce. Qermaq (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"after Congress actually had reneged" what do you mean by this? Hobartimus (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Palin said "Thanks, but no thanks" after Congress had already removed the funding for the bridge to nowhere.. Well, after Congress had changed the earmark from a specific funding of the bridge to a general funding of Alaska's transportation system. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand the funds were in place and it was a specific Alaskan decision not to build the bridge. Congress had nothing to do with not building the bridge they merely passed the responsibility to the Alaskan government to build it or not. Then Alaska decided not to build the bridge and spend the money elsewhere where it's less wasteful. Hobartimus (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is already pretty thoroughly covered in Sarah Palin#Gravina Island bridge. DId you have a specific change in mind? Kelly ^hi! 02:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your link is correct, Kelly. Do you mean Sarah Palin#Bridge to Nowhere? I'm thinking the issue at hand is that the way the section is worded, it gives the impression that Palin was the one that was responsible for getting rid of the earmark, when in reality it was Congress that did that.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, yeah, wrong link - it apparently got changed sometime, or my brain is scrambled. What rewording would you suggest? Kelly ^hi! 02:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly clear that Congress removed the earmark in 2005, leaving Alaska's general transportation grant available for whatever purposes the state chose. [5] The current wording gives the impression that this happened after Palin became governor, which of course is false. (For that reason, I agree with Bobblehead's criticism.) In 2006, campaigning for governor, Palin supported funding the bridge and referred to the power of the state's congressional delegation. The clear implication is that she wanted to keep the general transportation grant but get bridge money added on top of it. (If all she had wanted to do was spend the grant money on the bridge, then the state could do that without intervention by Stevens and Young.) Thus, she was still hoping to get bridge money from the feds. She canceled the bridge only when it became clear that there would be no additional appropriation for that purpose from Washington. In that respect, I think that Hobartimus's summary above, although accurate as far as it goes, is incomplete.

As for rewording, I'm too tired right now to draft something. I do think that the section should go roughly in chrono order, beginning with the pre-2006 developments rather than beginning with Palin's campaign. She wasn't involved pre-2006, but it's essential to give the reader the background. JamesMLane t c 08:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your theory that Palin somehow wanted to get the bridge money twice out of Congress is interesting to me. Why would Congress pay more after they already paid the full price of the bridge? After they pay the 2nd time and again Alaska finds that the bridge is still as wasteful and still spends the money much better elsewhere would there be a 3rd run 4th etc? I think your theory about bridge money on top of bridge money becomes weak at this point because it makes the assumption that Congress would even consider handing out more money for a bridge they already paid for in full. And in the end they didn't. Why would they? They'd look stupid at that point paying say 1B$ for a bridge with a price tag of 400 Mil. We know that the earmark was cancelled in late 2005 but when did the money arrive? The previous administration of Alaska should probably also get some credit if they also recognized the wasteful nature of the bridge and directed some funds at better projects however the extent of this is not known. But even if they get some more money from Congress why would they build the bridge. Say the bridge costs 400$ and it's benefit to Alaska is estimated at 50$ (thus being a huge waste of money), clearly they will direct the money building other projects(as they did). Let's say Congress goes mad and pays them 2-3-4 times for the whole price of the bridge as you speculated. Now they have 1600$ but the bridge still costs the same 400 with the same lousy 50 benefit and still if they build anything else they will be better off. If they have the choice they will never build the bridge they know it's simply not worth 400. If Congress forces the bridge on them with an earmark and they have no say in it then Congress can take credit or blame for how the project turned out. But here Alaskan government had the choice and they deserve full credit (possibly shared between the two administrations who handled it) for recognizing that the bridge is not worth it's cost. Hobartimus (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no issue of paying for the bridge twice. The 2005 transportation bill, which provided money to Alaska for transportation projects, was originally considered in a version that required $442 million to be spent on the two bridges. That requirement was removed. According to the Times article from 2005 that I linked:

The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose.

It was a year later that Palin, running for Governor, called for funding the projects and referred to the power of the state's Congressional delegation. If she meant only that she, as Governor, would choose to spend the federal money on the bridges rather than on other projects, then the Congressional delegation wouldn't be a factor. As the Times points out, the person elected Governor would have the power to do that without Congressional action. Her reference in 2006 to the power of the state's Congressional delegation must mean she wanted additional federal funding -- money for the bridges on top of what would otherwise be appropriated. (If Congress added bridge money with a restored earmark, that would eliminate the problem you describe of paying for the same bridge over and over again. The additional money would have to go to the bridges.) It was only when it became clear that no such funding would come through that she canceled the projects. JamesMLane t c 19:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest changes to the Bridge to Nowhere section; it's currently a bit unclear and does not make note of recent press on the subject. The sentence "Palin made national news when she stopped work on the bridge" should probably be removed, as I don't see it supported in the cited sources (both from Aug/Sept 2008). Also, most of the sources suggested an element of exaggeration or oversimplification in the claims made by the McCain/Palin campaign: such sources include, but are not limited to, the Anchorage Daily News, the Associated Press, the New York Times, NPR, the Guardian, Politifact (from the St. Petersburg Times), FOX News (!), the Los Angeles Times, UPI, UPI again, and of course Newsweek. This huge weight of reliable sources should be more accurately reflected. Currently, the article makes it sound like only a couple of local Alaskans noticed any disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality, which is not the case. MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal has a new article about Sarah Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere that could be used in the article. Here's a quote in the article about her stance on the Bridge to Nowhere:

She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.[6]

Here's a little quote from the article about her earmark requests:

Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor -- which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation.[7]

Also, here's an interesting photo of her, but it would probably cause an edit war if placed in the article. --JHP (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen the photo and I suspect I will again before November. Probably a little too pointed to be encyclopedic here. I'd add the WSJ to the list of sources indicating that there is a notable element to this story that is not well-covered in our article at present. Thoughts about proposed wording changes? MastCell ^Talk 23:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Too pointed" is not anything close to a reason for barring a photo from Wikipedia. See Michael Dukakis#Public relations failure: The "Tank/Helmet" disaster, which reproduces the photo that damaged Dukakis. In other words, we can use significant and accurate photos of candidates for national office. What's sauce for the Democratic gander is sauce for the Republican goose. The Palin t-shirt photo has been uploaded under a fair use rationale, which is defensible, but I'll feel more comfortable about adding it once we have more information about its provenance and licensing. JamesMLane t c 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed with agreed-upon text from political positions. See talk page there.GreekParadise (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The text may or may not have been agreed upon in that discussion, which I haven't had time to follow. What I can tell you with confidence is that the current version (notably in the first two paragraphs) is rife with false statements, chiefly of timing. It is incorrect as to the order of events, which was actually, in rough form:

• bridge is proposed
• bridge gets name "Bridge to Nowhere"
• opposition causes Congress to cancel earmark (note that this occurred in 2005, before Palin was Governor, not afterward [8])
• Palin runs for Governor on pro-bridge platform
• Palin, in campaign, expresses hope that Alaska's powerful Congressional delegation can restore Bridge to Nowhere money
• Palin is elected
• Congress does not restore federal money for bridge
• Palin doesn't want to spend state money for bridge, and so gives up on project.

I guess this exemplifies one problem with trying to deal with some many comments about so many issues on one talk page. Nevertheless, much of the correct information is in this very thread. I'll try to do a first-draft fix but I don't have time tonight to polish it, so merciless editing will be welcome. JamesMLane t c 04:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't forget that although the bridge was canceled, the money was just diverted to other projects. It's not like there was any benefit to U.S. taxpayers. --JHP (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean there was no benefit? How about the transportation projects that were completed with the diverted money? Your point is that every taxpayer should build their own roads or that Alaskans are not US citizens? Hobartimus (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)